"Troublemaker in the national level" seems to be the best way of describing and calling Malacañang. There are marked indications that it finds it hard to act right or to behave well. This is because Malacañang appears to enjoy and thrive on problems as it regularly creates big troubles and initiates great disputes. There is even the assumption that it feels uneasy when there is justice and truth in the land, when the country is heading for development and progress. For curious reasons, Malacañang is certainly not inclined to honesty and integrity and desirous of peace and harmony. Why?
Firstly, Malacañang could have an anti-social mind frame. Among other things, it features dangerous syndromes of failure to conform to social norms; deceitfulness, falsity, aggressiveness and recklessness; lack of remorse of conscience; and inability to learn from disgraceful experience and shameful conduct. In other words, it is not suited for social responsibility precisely because it does not recognize leadership accountability.
Secondly, Malacañang could have had wrong advisers who were chosen on account of transactional policies instead of professional competence. This is why, instead of the downright fault of the advisers themselves, Malacañang is the one at fault in choosing non-qualified counselors, tutors and mentors. The advisers could be saying what they deem acceptable – but not necessarily right on the ground.
Thirdly, Malacañang could have bad allies, i.e., egoistic and avaricious, dishonorable as well as dishonest cohorts. Assuming the saying “Birds of the same feather, flock together” does not necessarily apply in the situation, people in general could however think that such is precisely the case in the issue.
The above thoughts are not entirely without objective promise, beret of rational basis. The memorable troubles started as early as in 2001 when someone said something about a well considered political decision – only to do exactly the opposite a little later. This is neither the place nor the time to recite the long litany of monumental troubles perpetrated by Malacañang one after another – with a certain “Deal” as the latest but surely not the last. Sad to say, the latest trouble it concocted does not only have a national dimension but also regional – if not international – implications.
The fundamental question is how long can Malacañang get away with its apparently ingrained disposition and customer actuation as in effect the biggest troublemaker in the land?
How much more can the Filipinos suffer and be but to put to shame by Malacañang, which is supposed duty-bound to promote their common good and to improve their welfare?
Are the citizens of this continuously impoverished and depressed Country already accustomed to poverty and misery that they look at their socio-political gross misfortune as their irremediable destiny?
August 11, 2008